Recently, a case titled “Woman reports leader’s family of Chongqing Civil Affairs Bureau for massive wealth, but is sentenced to publicly apologize in return” has rapidly sparked discussions on the internet, continuing to draw public attention.
According to reports from several mainland Chinese news outlets, Ms. Li reported online about the mother of Zhou Moying, a retired level-leading figure from the Chongqing Civil Affairs Bureau, Wei Meizhen, a 74-year-old retired worker who had acquired 10 new properties with a total area of over 2,700 square meters worth billions within 3 years, in addition to owning a Bentley worth 7 million, questioning the serious discrepancy between the source of wealth and her identity.
The accused claimed that the wealth was earned through her mother’s business ventures. However, Li was removed from her post after reporting and later sued for infringing on the right to reputation. The Yuzhong District Court ruled that Li had violated privacy rights and ordered her to publicly apologize on the internet, with the apology video not to be deleted for 10 days.
Li made an apology video, which garnered over 1.24 million views across the internet. However, after Zhou Moying complained, the video was taken down. Subsequently, Li posted a second apology video, mentioning about Zhou Moying’s husband having fake military and identity cards, which was also removed.
In response to this, staff from the Chongqing Civil Affairs Bureau stated that they had taken note of the relevant issues raised, but the woman’s complaint did not relate to work problems and involved personal privacy regarding her parents.
After the exposure of this incident, the internet was in an uproar.
Blogger “Xiong Xiong Xiangtian07” posted, saying that the response from the Civil Affairs Bureau of Chongqing was dismissive, stating that this is a personal privacy matter, not a work-related issue. This incident has triggered a storm on the internet, with many questioning whether the massive wealth owned by the family members of public officials is solely considered “private.” The public’s vigilant questioning has for some reason been classified as encroaching on rights.
The article delved into the specifics of the information Li had uncovered: Zhou Moying’s mother, Wei Meizhen, a regular retired worker born in 1952, whose retirement income was only a few thousand yuan at most, had suddenly acquired 10 properties in just 3 years, totaling over 2,700 square meters. At Chongqing’s property prices, this would be worth billions at the least, in addition to owning a 7 million Bentley. Such a scale of assets, even for a regular entrepreneur, would be hard to achieve. Li found this situation highly irregular, suspecting foul play in the source of wealth behind the massive assets, thus she decided to publicly report this information online, questioning the possibility of power manipulation and benefits embezzlement.
The article argued that every remark in Li’s apology video carried a point, ostensibly admitting fault while actually pointing at the issues. For example, “I shouldn’t have exposed your mother’s billion-dollar properties. A 74-year-old retired worker earning billions in 3 years, I’ve been in business for 25 years and I feel inadequate compared to her achievements. I should really learn from your mother on how to do business.”
The article believed that the court’s verdict was too far-fetched. Li had reported using real names, with detailed information about the properties and luxury car, not concocted or malicious libel. Her intention was to question the legitimacy of the wealth’s sources, a form of public oversight. Even if the properties were legitimately acquired, relevant departments should have verified and provided an explanation to the public, instead of directly ruling that the reporter violated rights, thereby silencing oversight.
“Xiong Xiong Xiangtian07” expressed that this case is not an isolated incident, with similar occurrences happening too often in recent years. When “privacy” becomes an excuse to evade oversight, and reporting is misconstrued as infringement, the ultimate casualty is the fairness and justice of society as a whole.